Culture shock due to contact with unfamiliar cultures.

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 15, Chapter 8http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Eculture/Bochner.htmBochner, S. (2003). Culture shock due to contact with unfamiliar cultures. In W. J. Lonner, D. L.Dinnel, S. A. Hayes, & D. N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in Psychology and Culture (Unit 8,Chapter 7), (http://www.wwu.edu/~culture), Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western WashingtonUniversity, Bellingham, Washington USA.This material is copyrighted by the author(s), who have kindly extended to the Center the right to usethe material as described in the Introduction to this collection and the form entitled "Agreement toExtend License to Use Work."UNIT 8, CHAPTER 7CULTURE SHOCK DUE TO CONTACT WITH UNFAMILIAR CULTURESStephen BochnerSchool of PsychologyUniversity of New South WalesSydney, AustraliaABSTRACTThe topic of this chapter is the social psychology of cross-cultural interaction. We discuss thepsychological processes that take place during and after meetings between individuals and groups whodiffer in their cultural backgrounds. We identify two types of cross-cultural contact: a) meetings thatoccur between two societies when individuals travel from their place of origin to another country for aspecific purpose and a limited amount of time, such people being called sojourners in the literature; andb) meetings within multi-cultural societies among its ethnically diverse permanent residents. Contactwith culturally unfamiliar people and places can be unsettling, and the term "culture shock" is frequentlyused to describe how people react to novel or unaccustomed situations. Although the unknown can beterrifying, we nevertheless argue that "culture shock" is not inevitable, or for that matter as widespreadas is often suggested. Indeed, in many circumstances culture contact can be a satisfying experience. Wedraw on the ABC model of culture contact to provide a framework for the discussion, that is, wedistinguish between the Affective, Behavioural and Cognitive components of cross-cultural interaction.In the chapter we describe the conditions that determine whether the contact will have positive oradverse consequences, and the psychological techniques that can be deployed to increase cross-culturalunderstanding among the individuals, groups and societies in contact.INTRODUCTIONMost of us live and work in familiar surroundings, usually in places where we grew up or like thosewhere we were raised. And by and large the people whom we meet at work, school or play tend to besimilar to ourselves, in the sense of having comparable ethnic backgrounds, matching beliefs, sharedvalues, and speak the same language or at least a dialect variant of it. Technically, this can be calledinhabiting a culturally homogeneous space.Although living in accustomed circumstances is the rule for most people, there have always been1 of 10 3/19/06 5:38 PM

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 15, Chapter 8http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Eculture/Bochner.htmexceptions to this pattern. The history of humankind is full of examples of persons and groups whotravelled to foreign lands for a variety of purposes, the main ones being to work, study, teach, conquer,assist, have fun in, or settle in the country. The journals of Captain Cook, Marco Polo and ChristopherColumbus provide very good descriptions of what we have referred to elsewhere (e.g. Ward, Bochner& Furnham, 2001) as between-society culture contact. Modern day examples include employees ofinternational organisations, guest workers, overseas students, tourists, immigrants, refugees,missionaries, and peacekeepers.Between-Society ContactThe term between society culture-contact refers to individuals who travel beyond their countries oforigin for a particular purpose and for a specified period of time, and the relationships they establishwith members of the host society. The term sojourner has been used to describe such culture travellers,indicating that they are temporary visitors intending to return home after achieving their aims. And theterm host-society member is often employed to distinguish the visitors from the visited. Travellingbetween societies inevitably involves some personal contact between culturally dissimilar individuals,and in the case of the sojourner, exposure to unaccustomed physical and social manifestations. This canbe unsettling, particularly if the transition is abrupt, and is the origin of the concept of "culture shock",the subject of this chapter.Within-Society ContactThe term within-society contact describes inter-ethnic relationships in multi-cultural societies. Successfulmulti-cultural countries may contain many diverse ethnic groups integrated by institutional arrangementsthat support shared values and produce a common sense of nationhood. The United States from itsearliest days was characterised by a great deal of internal diversity. In such social systems people willinevitably meet others who are dissimilar to themselves in appearance, ancestry, values and customs. Incountries that favour ethnic diversity, such cross-cultural contact enriches the lives of its citizens. Theopposite is the case in countries where inter-group relations have an ethnocentric bias.Between-Society Culture ShockDuring the last 40 years, the incidence of humans shifting across national boundaries has greatlyincreased. Reasons include the invention of the jumbo jet that made international travel quicker, easierand cheaper. Changes in the world economy have also played their part. The term "globalisation" ismuch in the news nowadays, and relates not only to industry and commerce, but also to education andleisure. For example, in 1999 overseas assignments by United States companies exceeded 350,000business persons, a figure that does not take into account all the other nations sending their executivesabroad. It has been estimated that at any given time there are about a million and a half students andscholars attending educational institutions abroad. The figures for tourists are even greater: The WorldTourism Organisation has projected that by the year 2010 the number of international tourist-relatedjourneys will rise to a total of 940 million trips per year.Natural and human-made disasters such as floods, famine and regional conflicts also play a major role instimulating cross-cultural travel, and include growing numbers of refugees, immigrants and guest2 of 10 3/19/06 5:38 PM

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 15, Chapter 8http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Eculture/Bochner.htmworkers. However, people in these categories do not fit our definition of a sojourner as most of them donot intend to or are unable to return to their countries of origin. Consequently, their reactions are moreappropriately considered from the perspective of within-society culture contact.The phrase culture shock has been attributed to the anthropologist Kalervo Oberg, who in an article in1960 used it to illustrate how people react to strange or unfamiliar places. In our book (Ward, Bochnerand Furnham, 2001) we have suggested that readers should be cautious about taking the expression tooliterally. There is no doubt that it reflects some of the feelings and experiences of travellers whosuddenly find themselves in new, strange, or unfamiliar places. The unknown can be an uncomfortableand at times terrifying experience. However, the use of the word "shock" places too much emphasis onthe threatening circumstances of contact with novel situations, without acknowledging that suchexperiences may also have beneficial consequences for the participants. This led us to contend that overthe years "culture shock" has become a widely misused term, both in popular language as well as incross-cultural psychology. This article will identify some of the empirical conditions under which travelacross cultures can be stressful, offer a theoretical explanation for such an outcome, and provide a briefaccount of the strategies that can be used to reduce contact-induced stress. As such, we will restrictourselves to the "culture shock" of between-society culture contact, that is, the psychology of thetraveller or sojourner who ventures across cultures. Other articles in this series deal with immigrant andrefugee experiences, or the psychology of acculturation that characterises within-society culture contact.Readers may questions why we have included tourists in the discussion of culture shock. That isbecause although tourism is promoted as a tranquil and relaxing holiday experience, many studies haveshown that tourists are prone to exactly the same psychological stress as other between-culture travelers.The Determinants of Culture ShockThe Similarity-Attraction HypothesisA robust finding in social psychological research is that individuals have a preference for people whoare similar to themselves; and are less favourably disposed to others regarded as being different.Similarity is a complex matter, because individuals and groups can be alike in a variety of ways. Evenso, studies have found that most non-trivial aspects of similarity have an effect on how people willrespond to and perceive each other. In general, individuals are more likely to seek out, enjoy,understand, want to work and play with, trust, vote for, and marry others with whom they sharecharacteristics they regard as important. These include values, religion, group affiliation, skills, physicalattributes, age, language, occupation, social class, nationality, ethnicity, residential location, and mostother aspects on which human beings differ.It should be emphasised that we are addressing perceived rather than actual similarity, which is inferred,sometimes quite erroneously, from characteristics such as skin colour, accent, clothing, and other visiblecues. To cite a personal example, some years ago we were visiting a stately home in Britain, andencountered a middle aged man attired in a scruffy outfit engaged in pruning a rose bush. We assumedthat this person was one of the many gardeners employed by the estate, until we observed asimilarly-attired workman approach the man, deferentially doff his cap, and address the person as "MyLord". Many intercultural encounters are marred by such fallacious inferences.3 of 10 3/19/06 5:38 PM

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 15, Chapter 8http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Eculture/Bochner.htmThe technical term for preferring like-minded people is in-group bias. The theory underlying it is basedon the principle that the similarity of another person is reassuring. The world is a complex place withmany choices and alternatives to offer. It is frequently unclear as to how people should behave in socialsituations that are often ambiguous. Such uncertainty can be unpleasant, and actors will seek guidanceabout how to "correctly" conduct themselves. Books and magazines on etiquette provide one source ofadvice, as does religious doctrine for the devout. However, a more common solution is to ascertain howother people deal with the problem, the technical term for this process being consensual validation.Individuals with similar values and practices provide confirmation that our opinions, actions anddecisions are righteous and correct. And conversely, a dissimilar person may undermine such security.Although the term "culture" has been defined in a variety of ways, common to all of them is theprinciple of culture as shared meanings. It follows from this definition that contact between culturallydiverse people will take place among individuals who are dissimilar, quite possibly with respect toimportant, deeply felt issues. A further implication is that such interactions may be aversive and cause"culture shock", that is, create anxiety, and in extreme cases fear and loathing in the participants.The Culture-Distance HypothesisResearch, much of it reviewed in our book, has shown that the greater the cultural distance separatinginteracting participants, the more difficulty they will have in establishing and maintaining harmoniousrelations. This effect has been found for most sojourners including tourists, overseas students andexpatriate business persons, all of whom perform less effectively in their personal and professional livesin cultures that are significantly different from their own. Importantly, the distance between the culturesof the participants will have an effect on the smoothness of the interaction. For instance, Australiansojourners in Britain should have an easier time of it than is the case for Australian sojourners inMainland China. "Culture shock" defined in this way is a function of the degree of separation betweenthe cultures of the sojourners and their host societies.Differences in Core ValuesA special case of culture distance derives from differences in values, and can be another major source ofculture shock. Interactions between members of societies diametrically opposed on core issues canquickly descend into rancour and hostility. For instance, the lower standing of women in some societiesattracts condemnation in cultures that value non-discriminatory gender relations. Conversely, membersof male-dominated societies regard the occupational and sexual independence of Western women asrepugnant and offensive. Probably the single most potent source of friction stems from differences inreligious beliefs and practices, as many historical as well as contemporary examples illustrate.Outcomes of Culture ShockIn this section we review some of the psychological effects of exposure to culture contact. We will besuggesting that contact does not necessarily lead to negative reactions. However, there is no doubt thatcross-cultural interactions are inherently stressful, and an analysis of any potential adverse reactionsmust be included in the discussion.4 of 10 3/19/06 5:38 PM

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 15, Chapter 8http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Eculture/Bochner.htmCulture-Shock Research in Historical PerspectiveThe bulk of past research was conducted from the perspective of culture contact as a one-way flow ofinfluence. That is, most studies set out to describe the impact of the new culture on the sojourners. Theterm typically used in this context was "adjustment", implying that sojourners had to accommodate tothe host culture or suffer the consequences. Until quite recently any reciprocal effects of the visitor onthe host country tended to be ignored. This was because it was assumed that a host society is toomonolithic to be significantly touched by such temporary residents. The exception to this trend werestudies of the impact of tourists on the sites and cultures they visit, but even here this was mainly withrespect to their economic consequences. We will not be able to discuss this issue further as it would takeus beyond our immediate focus, but readers should be reminded that the sojourner-host memberrelationship is very much a reciprocal transaction, and that both parties can experience "culture shock".The early sojourn literature was characterised by four features: First, it was assumed that culture contactis a noxious, or at least a painful experience for the sojourner. Second, flowing from the belief thatcross-cultural contact is inherently unpleasant, most of the researchers conceptualised the outcome ofcontact predominantly in affective terms, concentrating on the negative emotions, fears and anxieties thatsojourners supposedly experienced.Third, this in turn gave the field a distinctly "clinical", intra-individual flavour, particularly when it cameto accounting for individual differences in adjustment and coping. Personality traits such as "tolerancefor ambiguity", "authoritarianism" and "neuroticism" were used to explain why some culture travellersfailed and others succeeded. One consequence of this approach was to stigmatise those who "brokedown". The many Peace Corps Volunteers in the early days who had to be repatriated because theycould not cope are a good example.Fourth, most of the research was basically a-theoretical, consisting of shotgun surveys of varioussamples of convenience, which meant that the results were difficult to interpret.Contemporary studies of "culture shock" tend to be much more theoretically driven, look at social aswell as internal determinants, and allow for the measurement of both positive as well as negativeoutcomes.The ABC of Culture ShockIn our book, we have developed what we called the ABC theory of culture contact. Unlike earlierformulations, the ABC model does not regard the response to unfamiliar cultural settings as a passive,largely negative reaction, but rather as an active process of dealing with change. The term copingbehaviour is sometimes used in the literature to emphasize this active aspect. Additionally, the modelmakes an explicit distinction between three components of this process: Affect, Behaviour, andCognitions; that is, how people feel, behave, think and perceive when exposed to second-cultureinfluences. The ABC model also links each of these elements to particular theoretical frameworks.Finally, the model has implications for interventions aimed at decreasing "culture shock" and increasingthe likelihood of achieving positive culture-contact outcomes.5 of 10 3/19/06 5:38 PM

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 15, Chapter 8http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Eculture/Bochner.htmThe affective approach to culture contact is captured by Oberg's depiction of 'culture shock' as a buzzingconfusion. To be fair, he had in mind people who were suddenly exposed to a completely unfamiliarsetting and overwhelmed by it, a phenomenon particular to the jet age. Nevertheless, it becamefashionable to characterise all culture contact in terms of negative affect, such as confusion, anxiety,disorientation, suspicion, even grief and bereavement due to a sense of loss of familiar physical objectsand social relationships.More recent formulations of the affective component in inter-cultural contact draw on the stress andcoping literature (reviewed in our book), which treats socio-cultural adjustment as an active, adaptiveresponse. Self-efficacy as described by Bandura (1986) has also been a prominent feature of thisapproach.The intervention techniques implied by the affective model tend to be variants of traditional counsellingprocedures, their aim being to reduce anxiety, increase self-efficacy and emotional resilience, and todevelop effective coping strategies.During the 70' and 80' it became obvious, at least to some of us, that culture contact did not always leadto culture shock. Some sojourners seemed to thrive in what were for them exotic locations. And it wasalso apparent, at least to those of us trained as social psychologists, that culture contact was manifestlyan interpersonal, interactive event. Intra-personal characteristics and traits certainly played a role, but thatwas really only one part of the story, and a minor one at that. The present writer spent some time atOxford with Michael Argyle, and was greatly impressed by his (Argyle, 1994) model of interpersonalbehaviour as a mutually skilled performance. Specifically, Argyle said that social interaction is a highlyrule-bound activity, even though the participants are mostly unaware of this underlying framework. Theguidelines that control social behaviour are largely taken for granted, rather like the presence of oxygenin the air. Only when the oxygen is reduced or missing, as in smog or carbon dioxide emissions, do wetake notice of it. And the same is true in our social world, we really only become aware of the presenceof a behavioural imperative when it is infringed or disregarded.Although at that time Argyle was constructing his social skills model without explicit reference to anycross-cultural implications, its utility in explaining culture-contact phenomena was obvious to the writer,leading him to develop what he called a culture-learning model of contact. In this he was assisted by twobooks by E. T. Hall (1959; 1966) that did take a transcultural view - The silent language and The hiddendimension. The culture learning model extends Argyle's social skills account to propose that the rules,conventions and assumptions that regulate interpersonal interaction, particularly verbal and non-verbalcommunication, vary across cultures. One implication is that sojourners who lack culturally relevantsocial skills and knowledge will have difficulty in initiating and sustaining harmonious relations withtheir hosts, or in the case of immigrants, with mainstream members. Their culturally inappropriatebehaviour will lead to misunderstandings and may cause offense. Indeed, research has shown thatculturally unskilled persons are less likely to achieve their professional and personal goals. Expatriateexecutives may alienate their local counterparts and lose market share, overseas students may fail theircourses, hospitality industry workers may offend tourists, and the job prospects of migrants may beadversely affected.All of the above effects have been confirmed empirically. The present writer has conducted numerous6 of 10 3/19/06 5:38 PM

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 15, Chapter 8http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Eculture/Bochner.htmstudies of the social networks of various groups of sojourners to confirm that poor social skills haveadverse effects, exacerbated by the extent of the distance separating host from visitor (or majority fromminority) cultures. A critical factor in sojourner adjustment was the extent to which they hadhost-culture friends, the reason being that these persons acted as informal culture-skills mentors. Thosevisitors who socialised exclusively with members of their own cultures did less well on a variety ofmeasures than sojourners who had established non-trivial links with their hosts. The relevant empiricalliterature has been comprehensively reviewed in our recent book.The culture learning approach emphasises the behavioural elements of culture contact. It is equallyrelevant in explaining encounters within as well as between cultures, and it is interactive rather than justconcentrating on the visitor or newcomer. It has clear implications for remedial action: For individuals tofunction effectively in a second-culture setting, they have to acquire relevant skills and knowledgespecific to the new culture; that is, they have to learn about the historical, philosophical and sociopoliticalfoundations of the target society, and acquire and rehearse some of the associated behaviours. Thisapproach does not stigmatise those who stumble in their second-culture interactions, because the reasonfor their failure lies not in their personalities, but in their competencies. And it is a lot easier to learn newskills than it is to change personalities.The third element of the model is the cognitive component, and owes its place in the theory to what hasbeen called the cognitive revolution in psychology, that is, to the greater emphasis during the last ten orso years on cognitive processes. Again, we have taken developments within "mainstream" monoculturalpsychology and extended them to culture contact issues. As mentioned earlier, the broadest definition ofculture is as a system of shared meanings, very much a cognitive proposition.People interpret physical, interpersonal, institutional, existential and spiritual events as culturalmanifestations, and these vary across cultures. When different cultures come into contact, particularly'distant' ones, such established truths lose their apparent certainty. For instance, when persons from asociety that values individualism, as is the case in most Western countries, sojourn in a collectivistculture such as Japan, the conflict between these two orientations will drift into the cognitions of bothvisitors and hosts. It will affect how the participants see each other and themselves, and whether eitherparty will change their views as a consequence of the contact. Relevant theoretical models and researchtopics include attribution theory, prejudice, ethnocentrism and stereotypes, and social identity theory.Interventions based on the cognitive component of culture contact involve some form of culturalsensitivity and awareness training. These techniques emphasise the cultural relativity of most values, thevalidity of the unfamiliar culture, and more generally the advantages of cultural diversity, including thecommercial, aesthetic, and adaptive advantages of a culturally heterogeneous global system.Measuring Culture ShockIn the final analysis the As, Bs, and Cs of culture contact are defined operationally in terms of theconstructs and procedures used to measure them. Some typical measures of B and C (behaviour andcognition) include Colleen Ward's Sociocultural Adjustment Scale, Kelley & Meyers Cross-CulturalAdaptability Inventory, and the Social Situations Questionnaire that Adrian Furnham and StephenBochner developed to measure the extent to which sojourners experience difficulties in their new7 of 10 3/19/06 5:38 PM

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 15, Chapter 8http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Eculture/Bochner.htmsettings (Furnham & Bochner, 1986).The behavioural dimension is sometimes further divided into three sub-categories: InstrumentalAdjustment, defined as the ability to navigate through the new environment. Examples of items include"I know where to shop for what I need." Interaction Adjustment, defined as casual interactions withhost members "When I experienced unsatisfactory service, I did something about it; I have no difficultyin asking strangers for directions". And Relational Adjustment, defined as maintaining non-trivialfriendships and social networks with host members "I made friends with people of different ethnicbackgrounds." We have also developed a scale that measures Host-Language Proficiency, found to be agood index of behavioural adjustment.The cognitive dimension can also be regarded as having three distinct components: Interest in OtherCultures "When I meet people different from me, I want to learn more about them"; Tolerance forCultural Differences "When I meet people from other cultures I tend to feel judgmental about theirdifferences"; and Positive Attitudes Toward New or Unusual Cultural Environments "I believe I canlive a fulfilling life in another culture".Over the years, the author has been measuring the cognitive dimension of ethnic or cultural identity withthe I Am Test, which consists of a sheet of paper listing ten incomplete statements beginning with "Iam.....". This measure is sensitive to whether participants are mono-cultural with respect to their new ororiginal culture, marginal with respect to both, or bi-cultural or culturally hyphenated individuals (e.g.Chinese-Australians). The procedure has its theoretical basis in Stephen Bochner's (1981)Mediating-Person Model. We also sometimes use a one-item test in which we simply ask people towrite down what ethnic group they belong to. Colleen Ward and her colleagues have explored identityby conventional questionnaire items that measure how individuals perceive and relate to their owncultural groups and to members of other groups.Affective Adjustment is usually measured by means of scales adapted from the clinical literature to gaugethe amount of stress and physical and mental ill health the sojourners experience, or in positive terms,the extent of emotional well-being and satisfaction. Sub-scales include measures of anxiety, confusion,low self-esteem, homesickness, and a sense of helplessness. Subjective estimates of health are also oftenincluded, using questionnaires such as the General Health Questionnaire.ConclusionLet me conclude by commenting about the relationship between the A, B, and C elements of the model.In our book we regard each of the components as influencing and being influenced by the other twoelements. Technically, this can be described as a continuous feedback cycle reverberating among thethree components. In other words, what we feel will affect what we do and think, and vice versa cubed.And because there is no direct research regarding the relative importance of these three processes, the A,B, and C components have been accorded equal status by default. However I tend to the view, which isnot necessarily shared by my co-authors, that the primary determinants of culture shock as a negativereaction, and cross-cultural adaptation as a positive response, are in the behavioural domain. I believethat affective (emotional) responses are essentially retrospective evaluations of inter-cultural experiences,that is, behavioural episodes, which can range from the aversive to the highly satisfactory. And I assume8 of 10 3/19/06 5:38 PM

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 15, Chapter 8http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Eculture/Bochner.htmthat the main function of cognitive responses is to rationalise these emotive reactions. If thesespeculations can be supported by empirical evidence, this has implications for intervening in andmanaging inter-cultural contacts, in particular that more weight should be given to facilitating the culturelearning of the participants.REFERENCESArgyle, M. (1994). The psychology of interpersonal behaviour. 5th Edition. London: Penguin.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. EnglewoodCliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Bochner, S. (Ed.) (1981). The mediating person: Bridges between cultures. Cambridge, Mass.:Schenkman.Furnham, A., and Bochner, S. (1986). (Reprinted 1989, 1990, 1994). Culture shock: Psychologicalreactions to unfamiliar environments. London: Methuen.Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City, NY: DoubledayWard, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). The psychology of culture shock. Second edition.Hove, UK: Routledge.About the AuthorStephen Bochner is a Visiting Professor in the School of Psychology at the University of New SouthWales in Sydney, Australia. He is a cross-cultural applied psychologist, with a special interest in thepsychology of culture contact and acculturation. He is the author of several books, and numerouschapters in books and journal articles. Topics on which he has published extensively include theadaptation of overseas students and expatriates, and the social psychology of culturally diverse workplaces. His most recent publications are as co-author with Colleen Ward and Adrian Furnham of thebook "The psychology of culture shock: Second edition" published in 2001 by Routledge; and"Organisational culture and climate", a chapter in the forthcoming book "Organisational psychology inAustralia and New Zealand", edited by M. O'Driscoll, P Taylor & T. Kalliath to be published by OxfordUniversity Press in 2003. E-mail address: s.bochner@unsw.edu.auQuestions for Discussion1. Why is it easier to communicate with individuals who are similar to you than with people who aredifferent?2. Canadian students enrolled in a university in the United States are probably going to make thetransition more easily than if they were attending one of the universities in Hong Kong that use Englishas the medium of instruction. What are some of the reasons for these differences in coping?9 of 10 3/19/06 5:38 PM

Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, Unit 15, Chapter 8http://www.ac.wwu.edu/%7Eculture/Bochner.htm3. What would be a useful working definition of culture?4. Adapting to new cultural settings involves changes in the way in which sojourners feel, behave, andthink. If you have had personal exposure to unfamiliar cultures, reflect on your experiences and sharethese with your colleagues, using the A, B, and C categories as a framework for your account.5. What do you believe is an effective way to prepare people for living and working in unfamiliarcultural settings? Again, use the A, B, C framework to organise your suggestions.Go to Top of Page | Home | Brief Table of Contents | Complete Table of Contents10 of 10 3/19/06 5:38 PM